Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thoughts on the Czar

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thoughts on the Czar

    As we all know the czar was the leader of Russia until 1917 when he was overthrwown by a revolution. As Russia was plunged into civil war he and his familiy were shuttled around all over the place and were eventually executed. The question is was the czar really a tyrant and did he deseve what he got? What are people's thoughts on the man?
    3
    YES! He was a dictator and a ruthless tyrant!
    0.00%
    0
    Yes, but his family should have been freed.
    0.00%
    0
    No, he should have been imprisioned.
    0.00%
    0
    No, he was not a dictator, just a ruler who was out of touch with his people and poorly advised.
    100.00%
    3
    There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full. -Henry Kissinger

  • #2
    He was really poorly advised.
    In honour I gained them, and in honour I will die with them.

    -Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, Duke of Bronte, KB, RN

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, I tend to agreee and that is what I voted for. Much like the King of France the man wasn't evil, just poorly advised, and he didn't really have the will power to lead a country. Much more interested in living the life of luxury.
      There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full. -Henry Kissinger

      Comment


      • #4
        I voted Yes, but his family should have been freed. Ultimately, he was in charge. Yes, he was badly advised. Yes, he cast aside his cousin who was probably the best advisor he had, but he did lead his country into World War One. He did ignore the rumblings and signs of dissatisfaction of the people. He did alienate his people. On reflection; I wished I wrote this than voted. He should have been inprisoned rather than shoot. Either way; his family was innocent.

        Cheers!



        Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

        "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

        What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

        Comment


        • #5
          By definition, the Tsar is a tyrant. The modern interpretation of tyrant is a negative one. My Greek is rusty, but I believe tyrant is rooted in Greek. Again, as I recall, a tyrant could be elected. The title measured the amount of control the leader had. (Feel free if I have missed it here.)

          With that said, his position kept him out of touch with the people. It came with the territory. His family had been sole rulers of RUssia for generations. How could he have known any better. He had to trust his advisors. Who else was there to turn to. This is not to absolve him from anything he may have done. This is merely an effort to put things in perspective to aid in making a decision.
          Retreat hell, we just got here. Every Marine, a rifleman.

          Never let the facts get in the way of the truth.

          Comment


          • #6
            He lost the country for a number of reasons - many of which were preventable by a "totalitarian" ruler.

            He took direct command of the forces in battles which were lost. Tying the Tzar dircetly to a loss is bad PR for a country. The people lose confidence in his ability to lead. When he was not "in command" he was so removed from the system as to make him impotent.

            He had Rasputin hanging around the court. This also gave bad PR. Rumors of German spies in court as well as infidelity also made the Tzar look weak.

            He had a tradition of bad things happening around him. His coronation witnessed a massacre (an ill omen to be sure) as well as the later 1905 issue.
            "Give a soldier an anvil, just a hunk of metal, and drive him out into the desert and leave him. In two weeks - when you go to get him, the anvil will be broken."
            General Creighton Abrams on the need for a soldier proof tank.

            Comment


            • #7
              Poor Nicky, way out of his depth. He never wanted the job, and was never comfortable with it.
              Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Thoughts on the Czar

                Originally posted by Napoleon
                As we all know the czar was the leader of Russia until 1917 when he was overthrwown by a revolution. As Russia was plunged into civil war he and his familiy were shuttled around all over the place and were eventually executed. The question is was the czar really a tyrant and did he deseve what he got? What are people's thoughts on the man?
                OK, listen voice of Russian guy about Tsar.

                Tsar was not tyrant completely. It is anti-Russian and Communist propaganda.

                And more.

                Tsar was too soft, Tsar regime was even more soft than Democratic regimes of France and Great Britain.

                It is main reason if Revolution.

                Tsar regime didn't make hard actions against anti-state elements in Russia even during WWI.

                Tsar regime didn't execute revolutioners.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I voted he is not a dictator and that he and his family were actually very decent Russian nobility with good intentions. However, the old Russian monarchy was one of the last European old school monarchy and the system no longer work well any more due to cronyism and corruption with the nations elites who ran the country. The rotten fruit does fall from the tree. It would have been better had Kerensky democratic government had survived but things apparently so suppressed and backward few had the confidence to make the effort to have democracy process.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bo Archer
                    I voted he is not a dictator and that he and his family were actually very decent Russian nobility with good intentions. However, the old Russian monarchy was one of the last European old school monarchy and the system no longer work well any more due to cronyism and corruption with the nations elites who ran the country. The rotten fruit does fall from the tree. It would have been better had Kerensky democratic government had survived but things apparently so suppressed and backward few had the confidence to make the effort to have democracy process.
                    Democratic governments (inc Kerensky) after revolution of February of 1917 disorganized country. They were chatterers and demagogues, they were unable to govern by country. West is crazy inquestions of Democracy. West suppose that any clown who is elected is better than other ruler who was not elected but got his power by right of succession or in result of coup d'etat.

                    "Declaration of rights of soldier" was the example of bad things which were made by democratic governments (non-Communistic) of Russia. This declaration was reason of collapse of Russian Army in spring of 1917 (before Communist Revolution in October). This declaration was main reason that Russian Army became completely unoperational for short time, from excellent power it became crowd of armed men.

                    According this declaration soldiers and sailors had right to not to carry out an orders of officers in some cases. West Democratic countries strengthened discipline in troops at any prices but in Russian Army anti-state propagandists (incl;uding Bolshevicks) could speak all what they want.

                    In Democratic Russia of 1917 (before Communist Revolution) soldiers and sailors killed many officers who tried to maintain discipline in troops. Soldiers Commitees became real power in troops. As result in case of military actions officers and even generals and admirals had to persuade soldiers to go in combat.

                    During German Moonzund operation in Baltic Sea in 1917 heroic crews of some Russian destroyers and pair of archaic ironclads (even not battleships) fought against superior forces of German Fleet (including many modern battleships) but Russian admirals couldn't to persuade crews of modern battleships in Helsingforce (Helsinki) Naval Base to go in combat and to help for their comrades, sailors refused to fight. Command of Russian Baltic Fleet designed excellent defensive operation - at the night minelayer had to mine possible direction of German Fleet advance. Minelayer got order to do it but... crew of minelayer refused to carry out the order and didn't came in sea.
                    And such situation was usual for Russian army and Navy of that time.

                    It was result of policy of Democratic governments of Russia.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Andrey


                      I had been taugth Kerensky supported the war against the Germans and that was one of his mistakes because the Russian people were against the war. Do I understand that you support the return of the monarchy to Russia today? We American have no experience with a monarchy in over 225 years. I actually like the British system better. The Baltic sea battle of 1917 was interesting and unknown to me. Destroyers and ironclads against Germans is very heroic. Perhaps I should have being more trueful about the matter of can democracy have lived under Kerensky in 1917. Honestly, I have serious doubts that the Russians could have developed democracy from nothing in 1917 as their is not much historical tradition of democratic elements in Russia. Today is Putin moving more toward a monarchy as most Russia tired of democracy Russia style? It maybe that Russia is ungovernable as a democracy and in need of a monarchy and national assembly. I really do not know.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        [QUOTE]Originally posted by Bo Archer

                        I had been taugth Kerensky supported the war against the Germans and that was one of his mistakes because the Russian people were against the war.
                        It is wrong. Russian Army was in top of its might in February of 1917, morale of Army in front was high.

                        Rear was infected by anti-state propaganda which was supported by Germans who wanted to destroy Russia from inside direction. Tsar regime was too soft with anti-state propagandists.

                        But Kerenskiy and so on were worse rulers than Tsar. They destroyed discipline in Army, they let for anti-war and anti-state propagandist to agitate (on money of German General Stuff) soldiers and sailors for all what they want. Clemanso shot French mutiners in 1917 but Democratic rulers of Russia let for soldiers to kill any officer what they wiil want.

                        Rule of Kerenskiy and so on destroyed military might of Russia.

                        Do I understand that you support the return of the monarchy to Russia today?
                        No, I do not.

                        The Baltic sea battle of 1917 was interesting and unknown to me. Destroyers and ironclads against Germans is very heroic.
                        It was battle for Moonzund Islands which cover way from Baltic Sea to Finn Gulf and to Piterburg.

                        Perhaps I should have being more trueful about the matter of can democracy have lived under Kerensky in 1917. Honestly, I have serious doubts that the Russians could have developed democracy from nothing in 1917 as their is not much historical tradition of democratic elements in Russia.
                        February Revolution of 1917 was large tragedy for Russia which was winning war in that time.

                        There is democracy and there is rule of crowd. And there are different kinds of Democracy. Tsar's Russia was like Great Britain, it had Parliament, it was restricted Democracy.

                        Today is Putin moving more toward a monarchy as most Russia tired of democracy Russia style? It maybe that Russia is ungovernable as a democracy and in need of a monarchy and national assembly. I really do not know.
                        You are wrong in estimation of Putin.

                        Putin is good guy. He puted in order Russia. His actions are like actions of Roosevelt (FDR) or De Goll.

                        Russia is tired from disorder which was in 90th.

                        We do not want to live like USA, we do not suppose that USA is best place in the Earth, we do not like many things which are OK foe Americans.

                        USSR (and old, Tsar Russia) had very many things which were better than in modern USA. We want to build new Russia on base of best things which were in USSR and in which are in USA and West Europe now.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'll be nit-picky for a moment, it is "tsar", there is no "c" in the Russian Alphabet, so it cannot be czar.

                          Nicholas was a typical Romanov, regarding himself as less than a god, but far more than a man. He believed, as did all Romanovs, that he ruled by divine right, that the peasants were his private toys. His wife was obsessed with mysticism, the occult, astrology, and other "folk religion" type beliefs. Following on from this, she was bewitched by the Siberian huckster, Rasputin, especially in relations to his ability to treat her son's hemophilia. Modern research has revealed the great likelihood of Rasputin using a natural blood coagulant to treat the Tsarevich, while declared it as a result of his "powers" To say that Nicholas and Aleksandra were "out of touch is akin to saying that Caligula was "a little crazy", or that Attila "was not a nice guy". They were oblivious to all the chaos, inhumanity and depravity around them. They wanted things to be as they were when the Romanovs first ascended to the Russian throne. Execution was doing them a favor because, even had they have been spared, they could not have survived in the modern word, especially not simply as average citizens. No matter where they settled, every turn would remind them of both what they had lost, and what they had to endure. I think the Tsarina would have shot herself within the first week. The hemophliac Tsarevich would be the only one to benefit - he could have been treated by a proper doctor, and had his disorder properly controlled. No, death was the only reasonable course, especially for the Bolsheviks, whose hold on power was tenuous until after the Civil War.
                          Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
                          (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Some remarks for Hogdriver

                            There are letters “k”, “s”, “ts” in Russian alphabet. As I understand English “c” sometimes equal English “k”, sometimes – “s”.

                            So more correct are such words

                            “Tsar”=king
                            “Tsaritsa” (not “Tsarina”)=queen
                            “Tsarevich”=prince
                            “Tsarevna”=princess

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Since there are multiple dialects of Russian, there are multiple ways of spelling it.

                              Czar-this one and
                              Tsar-this one are most common.
                              Csar
                              Tzar

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X